Proast: From <i>A Second Letter to the Author of the Three Letters for Toleration</i> (1704)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As to ‘using force in matters of religion’ (which are your words, not mine), if you mean by it the using force to bring men to any other religion besides the true, I am so far from owning the question to be whether the magistrate has a right to use force for such a purpose, that I have always thought it out of question that no man in the world, magistrate or other, can have any right to use either force or any other means that you can name to bring men to any false religion, how much soever he may persuade himself that it is the true. It is not therefore from any alteration, but from the true state of the question, that I ‘take occasion’, as you complain without cause, ‘to lay load on [you], for charging [me] with the absurdities of a power in the magistrates to punish men to bring them to their religion’. But it seems, having little to say against what I do assert, you find it necessary yourself to alter the question, and to make the world believe that I assert what I do not, that you may have something before you which you can confute. And so you undertake to prove, that ‘if upon [my] grounds the magistrate be obliged to use force to bring men to the true religion, it will necessarily follow that every magistrate who believes his religion to be true is obliged to use force to bring men to his’.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.082 | 0.039 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".